Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
*
G.R. No. 90828. September 5, 2000.
________________
* FIRST DIVISION.
610
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
611
receipt transaction where goods are owned by the bank and only
released to the importer in trust subsequent to the grant of the
loan. The bank acquires a “security interest” in the goods as
holder of a security title for the advances it had made to the
entrustee. The ownership of the merchandise continues to be
vested in the person who had advanced payment until he has
been paid in full, or if the merchandise has already been sold, the
proceeds of the sale should be turned over to him by the importer
or by his representative or successor in interest. To secure that
the bank shall be paid, it takes full title to the goods at the very
beginning and continues to hold that title as his indispensable
security until the goods are sold and the vendee is called upon to
pay for them; hence, the importer has never owned the goods and
is not able to deliver possession. In a certain manner, trust
receipts partake of the nature of a conditional sale where the
importer becomes absolute owner of the imported merchandise as
soon as he has paid its price.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
Same; Same; The Trust Receipts Law does not seek to enforce
the payment of the loan, rather it punishes the dishonesty and
abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the
prejudice of another.—The Trust Receipts Law does not seek to
enforce payment of the loan, rather it punishes the dishonesty
and abuse of confidence in the handling of money or goods to the
prejudice of another regardless of whether the latter is the owner.
Here, it is crystal clear that on the part of Petitioners there was
neither dishonesty nor abuse of confidence in the handling of
money to the prejudice of PBC. Petitioners continually
endeavored to meet their obligations, as shown by several receipts
issued by PBC acknowledging payment of the loan.
Same; Same; The fact that the accused are not importers
acquiring the goods for re-sale, contrary to the express provision
embodied in the trust receipt and at no time did the title pass to
the bank impresses upon the
612
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
_______________
614
14
1981. Concurrently with the separate demand for
attorney’s fees by PBC’s legal counsel,
15
PBC continued to
demand payment of the balance.
On 14 January 1983, Petitioners were charged with the
violation of P.D. No. 115 (Trust Receipts Law) in relation to
Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code in an Information
which was filed with Branch 18, Regional Trial Court of
Cagayan de Oro City. The accusatory portion of the
Information reads:
________________
615
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
________________
616
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
20
In its decision 6 March 1989, the Court of Appeals
modified the judgment of the trial court by increasing the
penalty to six years and one day of prision mayor as
minimum to fourteen years eight months and one day of
reclusion temporal as maximum. It held that the
documentary evidence of the prosecution prevails over
Veloso’s testimony, discredited Petitioners’ claim that the
documents they signed were in blank, and disbelieved that
they were coerced into signing them.
On 25 March 1989, 21
Petitioners filed a Motion for New
Trial/Reconsideration alleging that the22 “Disclosure
Statement on Loan/Credit Transaction” (hereafter
Disclosure Statement) signed by them and Tuiza was
suppressed by PBC during the trial. That document would
have proved that the transaction was indeed a loan as it
bears a 14% interest as opposed to the trust receipt which
does not at all bear any interest. Petitioners further
maintained that when PBC allowed them to pay in
installment, the agreement was novated and a creditor-
debtor relationship was
23
created.
In its resolution of 16 October 1989 the Court of
Appeals denied the Motion for New Trial/Reconsideration
because the alleged newly discovered evidence was actually
forgotten evidence already in existence during the trial,
and would not alter the result of the case.
Hence, Petitioners filed with us the petition in this case
on 16 November 1989. They raised the following issues:
________________
20 Annex “A” Petition, Rollo, 3-10. Per Imperial, J., J., with the
concurrence of Puno, R. and Francisco, C, JJ.
21 Rollo, 27-39.
22 Id., 177-178.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
23 Id., 45.
617
________________
24 Rollo, 127.
25 Id., 128.
618
________________
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
619
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
________________
620
34
cle 315 (1) of the Revised Penal Code, without need of
proving intent to defraud.
A thorough examination of the facts obtaining in the
case at bar reveals that the transaction intended by the
parties was a simple loan, not a trust receipt agreement.
Petitioners received the merchandise from CM Builders
Centre on 30 October 1979. On that day, ownership over
the merchandise was already transferred to Petitioners
who were to use the materials for their construction
project. It was only a day later, 31 October 1979, that they
went to the bank to apply for a loan to pay for the
merchandise.
This situation belies what normally obtains in a pure
trust receipt transaction where goods are owned by the
bank and only released to the importer in trust subsequent
to the grant of the loan. The bank acquires a “security
interest” in the goods as holder of a security
35
title for the
advances it had made to the entrustee. The ownership of
the merchandise continues to be vested in the person who
had advanced payment until he has been paid in full, or if
the merchandise has already been sold, the proceeds of the
sale should be turned over to him by the36
importer or by his
representative or successor in interest. To secure that the
bank shall be paid, it takes full title to the goods at the
very beginning and continues to hold that title as his
indispensable security until the goods are sold and the
vendee is called upon to pay for them; hence, the importer
has never 37owned the goods and is not able to deliver
possession. In a certain manner, trust receipts partake of
the nature of a conditional sale where the importer
becomes absolute owner of 38the imported merchandise as
soon as he has paid its price.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
_______________
621
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 14/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
A Yes, sir.
Q I am showing to you this charge invoice, are you
referring to this document?
A Yes, sir.
_______________
622
xxx
Q What is the date of the charge invoice?
A October 31, 1979.
COURT:
Make it of record as appearing in Exhibit D,
42
the zero in
30 has been superimposed with numeral 1.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 15/18
9/3/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 339
_______________
623
_______________
624
——o0o——
625
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016cf63d883d67756e79003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 18/18